Exhaled volatile organic compounds in the detection of colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

There is an apparent need for novel non-invasive colorectal cancer (CRC) screening tests that are more acceptable to patients and can reliably detect CRC or reduce the number of unnecessary colonoscopies performed in cancer-free patients. An emerging number of studies demonstrate the potential value of exhaled volatile organic compounds (VOCs) as a diagnostic and triaging test for CRC. A systematic appraisal and meta-analysis of the published evidence was done to determine whether exhaled VOCs can be used in the detection and screening of CRC. Nine electronic databases were searched from inception of the databases until August 2020. Quantitative and descriptive data of CRC patients and healthy control (HC) participants who underwent VOCs breath analysis was extracted. In addition, where possible, sampling methods, analytical platforms, processors, and specific breath biomarkers found in each study were recorded. Fourteen articles were included in the systematic review with 491 colorectal patients and 754 HC participants (n=1245). Sub-group meta-analysis was conducted on nine of those articles and the pooled sensitivity was estimated to be 0.89 (95 % CI = 0.80-0.99) whereas specificity was 0.83 (95 % CI = 0.74-0.92). Heterogeneity of pooled sensitivity and specificity was estimated as I2=11.11 %. Although this study was limited by small sample size and different analytical platforms, the proposed future framework resolves such limitations and standardizes future research. It is reasonable to deduce that VOCs breath analysis is certainly a field of research that can progress to replace traditional methods within the framework of CRC screening and diagnosis.


3-4
Data items 10a List and define all outcomes for which data were sought.Specify whether all results that were compatible with each outcome domain in each study were sought (e.g. for all measures, time points, analyses), and if not, the methods used to decide which results to collect.

3-4
10b List and define all other variables for which data were sought (e.g.participant and intervention characteristics, funding sources).Describe any assumptions made about any missing or unclear information.

3-4
Study risk of bias assessment 11 Specify the methods used to assess risk of bias in the included studies, including details of the tool(s) used, how many reviewers assessed each study and whether they worked independently, and if applicable, details of automation tools used in the process.

3-4
Effect measures 12 Specify for each outcome the effect measure(s) (e.g.risk ratio, mean difference) used in the synthesis or presentation of results.

3-4
Synthesis methods 13a Describe the processes used to decide which studies were eligible for each synthesis (e.g.tabulating the study intervention characteristics and comparing against the planned groups for each synthesis (item #5)).

3-4
13b Describe any methods required to prepare the data for presentation or synthesis, such as handling of missing summary statistics, or data conversions.

3-4
13c Describe any methods used to tabulate or visually display results of individual studies and syntheses.

3-4
13d Describe any methods used to synthesize results and provide a rationale for the choice(s).If meta-analysis was performed, describe the model(s), method(s) to 3-4

S3
Section and Topic Item # Checklist item

Location
where item is reported identify the presence and extent of statistical heterogeneity, and software package(s) used.
13e Describe any methods used to explore possible causes of heterogeneity among study results (e.g.subgroup analysis, meta-regression). 3-4 13f Describe any sensitivity analyses conducted to assess robustness of the synthesized results.

3-4
Reporting bias assessment 14 Describe any methods used to assess risk of bias due to missing results in a synthesis (arising from reporting biases).

3-4
Certainty assessment 15 Describe any methods used to assess certainty (or confidence) in the body of evidence for an outcome.

Study selection
16a Describe the results of the search and selection process, from the number of records identified in the search to the number of studies included in the review, ideally using a flow diagram.

4-11
16b Cite studies that might appear to meet the inclusion criteria, but which were excluded, and explain why they were excluded.

4-11
Study characteristics 17 Cite each included study and present its characteristics.

4-11
Risk of bias in studies 18 Present assessments of risk of bias for each included study.

Results of individual studies
19 For all outcomes, present, for each study: (a) summary statistics for each group (where appropriate) and (b) an effect estimate and its precision (e.g.confidence/credible interval), ideally using structured tables or plots.

4-11
Results of syntheses 20a For each synthesis, briefly summarise the characteristics and risk of bias among contributing studies.

4-11
20b Present results of all statistical syntheses conducted.If meta-analysis was done, present for each the summary estimate and its precision (e.g.confidence/credible interval) and measures of statistical heterogeneity.If comparing groups, describe the direction of the effect.Nakhleh,

TITLE OR ABSTRACT
Support25 Describe sources of financial or non-financial support for the review, and the role of the funders or sponsors in the review.16 Report which of the following are publicly available and where they can be found: template data collection forms; data extracted from included studies; data used for all analyses; analytic code; any other materials used in the review.
11 20c Present results of all investigations of possible causes of heterogeneity among study results.4-11 20d Present results of all sensitivity analyses conducted to assess the robustness of the synthesized results.